Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
DD(X) is going into production by 08-09.
|
Well, until it does, it may not. And even then, it may be cancelled. That's the way of military procurement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Anyways, regardless this ship does have TMD capability. Go and look at the specs, specifically the missiles it carries. I'll give you a hint, it starts with an S.
|
'bout time you noticed that. All this talk about SeaWolf...
Still, my original statement stands - it won't have the TMD capability of CG(X) (which is supposed to get a new air defense sensor suite).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
The Patriot missile system is a good example of this. It can intercept cruise missiles or ballistic missiles, and it can hit aircraft too should the target teams choose to do so. Thats an example, it's more about the fire control systems than the actual missile.
|
Actually no, the original PAC-2 Patriot's missile intercept capability was something of a hack. Notice it didn't do that well in ODS.
PAC-3s are better, but they're lack the range and altitude performance for wide-area coverage. That's where THAAD is supposed to come in.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Evidently you missed the rest of the point. You don't understand the idea of wasteful. And honestly, when is a carrier fleet going to run down a freighter? And another thing, you don't have a clue about what tactics it would use. You haven't considered.
|
When did I say a carrier fleet would run down a freighter? That's a job for regular surface combatants. Or is that job too menial for your uber BB?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
The DD(X) is not a budget breaker according to the Navy. Your talking about the U.S Military. An aircraft carrier costs 13 billion dollars. A missile cruiser cost 2 billion. And a DD(X) costs 4.2 billion. A 5.2 billion dollar BB that can handle the work of multiple missile cruisers as well as NCSF support as well as limited support in other areas.
|
Jeez! What rock are you living under? The war in Iraq is forcing all of the services to cut back on modernization.
Try reading this report from the Congressional Budget Office describing some of their reservations with the DD(X) and LCS.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...&from=0#anchor
Oh, and as a mental exercise, try fitting your BB in under their budgeted numbers. How many fewer DD(X)s and LCSs will there be?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Million dollar missiles are not a substitute. I already made this point. The military used over 40 tomahawk cruise missiles on ONE bunker in Iraq back in 2003. 40! Do your math. Obviously they don't work for every purpose.
|
Umm, no. They used 40 Tomahawks on one bunker
complex. That's more than one aimpoint.
Plus, guess what, your BBs guns would've been useless in this situation - Baghdad is 340 miles from the coast.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
No, clearly you don't understand the system or the requirement. They were not activated for this second gul war because they can't get into range since they only have a range of 23 miles. In the first Gulf War they camped off the coast of Kuwait and fired at Iraqi targets in Kuwait. Thats why they aren't activated for this second gulf war. Next time do your research. And also, the secnav is currently thinking about reactivating them because of the DD(X) delay.
|
No, they deactivated because they were bleeding the Navy's O&M budget dry and only did one thing, somewhat well - NGFS.
Yeah, I'm sure Rumsfeld is thinking hard about it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
I submit that you don't understand how Mermaid pods work. They are more fuel efficient than current naval propulsion applications. Combined with a USN nuclear naval reactor and your point quickly dissolves.
|
I'm sure they are, but an efficient 33,000 ton ship will still be far more expensive to operate than an efficient 16,000 ton ship.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Closing warfare is not a term from the 1940's. It's a modern term.
Or rather it was around in some term during the 1940's. This just shows you don't actually understand the concepts or tactics behind such a vessel.
|
Ok, point me to some current naval doctrine that would lead one to believe a major surface combatant needs 40+kt speeds. (and when I mean major surface combatant, I don't mean LCS or Visby or other oversized gunboats)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Seal teams are pointless in modern warfare. You don't consider a special ops team as a front line asset. The two gulf wars aside from what you think are not actual wars. They are conflicts really.
|
Huh? SEAL teams are pointless? I guess all the teams operating in Afghanistan can just come home then. All the teams that went in before the start of ODS and OIF were just wasting their time.
BTW, I have no idea what your trying to say with your 'actual war' vs 'conflict' remark.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Doesn't need one. However it does have UAV support. And I suppose it could have helo support, but just not based on the ship. Helo support is irrelevant. The Iowa class BB's do have helo decks. So obviously someone thought of that idea before. This is just a question of whether I believe it's nessesary or not.
|
Well, gosh! I nominate you for SecDef! You obviously have all the answers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
10 inch guns were rarely used in any naval application, and why underdog it? The 16 inch gun carries possibility for higher caliber and greater range combined with stronger punch.
|
Who cares if it's ever been used before?! This is a clean sheet design! It's not like you're trying for ammo commonality with Iowa stocks or anything. There's nothing special about 16 inches, or 10, or 8 or whatever. The only 'special' calibers are ones where you might be able to reuse some design and development - primarily 155mm.
Start with requirements. What are the target sets? At what range? How quickly must they be dealt with? (DPMIs over time). And recall that there are other systems in the military to deal with the corner cases (e.g. super-hardened bunkers, etc).
Note, the USAF believes that a measly 250lb bomb can deal with 80% of battlefield targets.
Smaller munitions means lower pricetags and larger numbers for a given weight and volume.
Smaller guns means smaller mounts and more stowed rounds for a given volume.
Smaller, in general, means cheaper.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Designing a 10 inch gun is pointless, missiles can handle something that needs less fire power.
|
Then I guess the AGS is pointless too. Let's just scrap all calibers below 16".
Or maybe... 16" guns are pointless, larger missiles and bombs can handle targets that need more firepower.
Let me clue you in on a little secret. You can always fire more smaller rounds to get the same area effect as a 16" shell, but you can never fire less than one 16" round.
This means that big guns have less flexibility. The can't be called close to friendlies. They can't be fired into cities (unless you don't mind flattening entire city blocks). They are
massive overkill for hitting vehicles or fighting positions or even exposed infantry.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Except, you overlooked the real reason. The Navy needs bigger guns. Their extreme expenses with cruise missiles just reinforces this. A bigger gun can shoot further with those rocket assisted shells. And my advanced propellants increase that range further. Thats is like asking why use a cruise missile when you can use a rocket propelled grenade?
|
Ok, let's do a little math. Using your cost estimates, your BB costs a billion more than a DD(X). The production cost of a TacTom is around $600k ($750k is the program cost).
So for each BB, you could by 1600 TacToms!
And each could be carried by any VLS ship in the fleet, not just a the handful of BBs you can afford.
And that doesn't even count the cost of arming the BB!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Also, the reason that WW2 style turrets had 3 guns per turret isn't to increase firing rate. They usually fired all at the same time. It was for increased salvo efficiency.
|
Call me ignorant. What exactly is 'salvo efficiency'?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
This idea is here to stay. A decade ago the Navy came up with the idea for an arsenal ship. But it didn't have any guns, so they trashes it. All it had was cruise missiles and that was not good enough. So that eventually led to the DD(X), which has extreme range with its gun. Which opens up the reasoning for a BB.
|
No, it opens up the reasoning for a DD(X). The reasoning for a BB is still several steps beyond.